Because I do not know if there is a clear-cut answer to the aforementioned questions, the following ideas are similarities and differences between politics and sports that I have generated through conversations between myself and a few other individuals.
The activities of both sports and politics seem to engage individuals into some sort of game. A game, in this case, can be defined as an activity governed by some set of rules, and has a desirable end-result that creates competition or evokes a competitive nature between individuals or teams. In sports, this may be observed as a game, a match, or even an entire season. In the world of politics, this "game" may be seen in elections, debates, passing bills or laws, etc. (basically any number of activities that create debate (competition) in the political arena). In both there exist matches ranging from individual to team competitions. The competitiveness involved in both sports and politics can take on many different faces and may be governed by many different sets of rules and/or standards for determining the "winner". In regards to rules, both create topics for argumentation based on their officiating standards, as well as, how and to what degree these are enforced and upheld.
A couple examples of similar rules of competition that exist between professional sports and politics that have come to mind are:
- The ability to review a decision made by the officials of a sports event versus the mandatory recount of votes during public elections
- The age limits in place for certain professional sports versus the age limits in place for holding certain political positions such as the US President
There exist many different levels within politics that could be compared to 'leagues' in sports. The leagues, in a sense, line up what competition the opponents will actually face. Transitions within or to different leagues are possible in both sports and politics, both having levels ranging from amateur to professional. Entry into the game is also made fairly easy for almost anyone wanting to participate because of the diversity of these leagues which helps to generate popularity of politics and sports.
In both politics and sports, spectatorship and fans represent significant roles. In politics, fans often represent the success or failure of certain players of the game through their ability to cast votes. Much the same type of scenario exists in fan votes for certain sporting events such as all-star games in certain American professional sports leagues. The BCS ranking system in NCAA football that is currently in place, and definitely one of the most controversial topics in sports, includes human polls that account for two-thirds of each teams' overall standing. The ability for spectators to be able to cast votes not only increases feelings of ownership in the competition, but also helps to hold the attention and create excitement about the events. In addition to being active participants in competitions via voting, both politics and sports share the idea of holding events to heighten their teams' dominance. In sports these are known as 'pep rallies' and in politics these are called 'political rallies'. Both events involve fans fulfilling cheerleader type roles and an outlet for fans to show their affiliations and team pride.
Being that the question of whether or not politics should be considered a sport arose from my involvement with recent media coverage, it is interesting to analyze what effects the media has the ability to create for politics and sports, as well as what effects they have on the media in return. Looking at the media as a business, both sports and politics are hot topics of public interest that the public relies on the media to provide them with the most recent and up-to-date coverage of through various preferred mediums. Based on this, media providers thrive on these topics because there always seems to be something new emerging or happening in both the arenas of sports and politics. By developing a reputation of being a fast and reliable source for gathering this information, the success of the media source is furthered. Establishing this, it makes sense that the media uses these topics for their own gains. It is interesting to question though if the media developed their foci on these topics because of initial public interest, or if in fact, the media providers themselves created the interest by dedicating coverage to these topics. Because media providers seek to earn the public's trust, what the media chooses to release can have a profound influence on its audience members. Playing off of this, sports and politics alike and use media coverage to their advantage in generating popularity. Because sports, politics, and media providers are all seeking to generate profits, the importance of each maintaining their own reputation in the eyes of the public seem to uphold integrity to some degree. At this point, answering the question of whether or not the media is responsible for the public's craving for politics and sports of its audience today becomes less interesting than what each is providing for each other in order to increase overall gains and minimize losses in today's cluttered entertainment channels.
Even though politics does not generally involve feats involving the raw physical abilities of its participants, there are many suggestions that allude to it being very similar to a professional sport. These arguments are based on the intellectual abilities and capacities which surround both sports and politics. Whether or not the public will ever consider politics as a sport is probably not a question that crosses the minds of the general populous, but is rather something interesting to consider in today's media and technology driven world.
jm
No comments:
Post a Comment